ATD2011 Trade Thread & Trade Talk

I think it would be easier for the experienced GM to evaluate the trade if the overall # of the pick was put beside the rounds. When we talk about pick #300, #400 etc ... names pop out of my head (people that are available at those spot), so it will be easier to see who's winning and who's not.

I think it would be easier for the experienced GM to evaluate the trade if the overall # of the pick was put beside the rounds. When we talk about pick #300, #400 etc ... names pop out of my head (people that are available at those spot), so it will be easier to see who's winning and who's not.

Good point.

I never know what to make of trades (including trade proposals to me) until I know the actual number of the pick.

I think it would be easier for the experienced GM to evaluate the trade if the overall # of the pick was put beside the rounds. When we talk about pick #300, #400 etc ... names pop out of my head (people that are available at those spot), so it will be easier to see who's winning and who's not.

agreed

especially now that there are 40 teams, instead of the usual 30, it is not easy to get a sense of an 11th round pick.

wow, big trade. A huge trade, but not close to veto worthy, IMO. Just your average everyday trade in terms of the value going both ways.

I completely disagree. If he pulls this deal off, Zamboni Mania should be ashamed of himself if he doesn't win the ATD going away.

Dropping from the 5th overall into the 2nd round is a big fall, but moving up from 11th, 12th, 13th to 3rd, 4th, 5th is a hugely lopsided return for that move-down. I don't get how the experienced GMs here aren't seeing it.

I could build a team with the picks ZM will get after this deal that no one could touch. It is badly, badly out of whack.

I completely disagree. If he pulls this deal off, Zamboni Mania should be ashamed of himself if he doesn't win the ATD going away.

Dropping from the 5th overall into the 2nd round is a big fall, but moving up from 11th, 12th, 13th to 3rd, 4th, 5th is a hugely lopsided return for that move-down. I don't get how the experienced GMs here aren't seeing it.

I could build a team with the picks ZM will get after this deal that no one could touch. It is badly, badly out of whack.

Depth isn't everything , he will seriously lack elite talent compare to other team and it will just be a matter of depth vs top end talent.Your top end talent is still on the ice for 1/3 or 2/3 of the time depending on position or 3/3 if it's a goalie , and even if you have a great 3rd and 4th line , they can't play that much minutes.

I am thinking of a new trade metric (read "restriction") which would probably do a lot more to maintain league balance than the three trade maximum rule.

No more than three rounds movement (up or down) for any pair of picks in a trade and no more than three picks involved in any trade.

What does this mean? Well, it makes huge and complicated trades impossible. If you wanted to bail out of the 1st round, for example, you could not accept anything less than a 4th rounder for it, and nothing more in return than two seperate move ups of three rounds (with the other two picks in the deal). So, for example, under this metric, the highest possible return for a trade down out of the first round (and the most unbalancing possible trade) would be as follows:

1st, 6th, 7th

for

2nd, 3rd, 4th

The 1st pairs with the 2nd (the smallest movedown possible), while the 6th and 7th pair with the 3rd and 4th (three round move up in both cases). It is still potentially unbalancing, but I would personally find the above trade acceptable. One GM might end up with an advantage, but it would not be a league-killer.

If we adopt the above standard, all the nonsense trade bickering could be put to rest. Trades belong in the ATD; they are a very important tool that allows GMs to build the kind of team they want to build. A little move-up here to get the guy you want, a little strategic move-down there because you don't like the guys on the board...these things are good, and should remain in the ATD.

But these monster trades are a poison to the league, and should be snuffed out once and for all with a clear rule.

I am thinking of a new trade metric (read "restriction") which would probably do a lot more to maintain league balance than the three trade maximum rule.

No more than three rounds movement (up or down) for any pair of picks in a trade and no more than three picks involved in any trade.

What does this mean? Well, it makes huge and complicated trades impossible. If you wanted to bail out of the 1st round, for example, you could not accept anything less than a 4th rounder for it, and nothing more in return than two seperate move ups of three rounds (with the other two picks in the deal). So, for example, under this metric, the highest possible return for a trade down out of the first round (and the most unbalancing possible trade) would be as follows:

1st, 6th, 7th

for

2nd, 3rd, 4th

The 1st pairs with the 2nd (the smallest movedown possible), while the 6th and 7th pair with the 3rd and 4th (three round move up in both cases). It is still potentially unbalancing, but I would personally find the above trade acceptable. One GM might end up with an advantage, but it would not be a league-kliier.

If we adopt the above standard, all the nonsense trade bickering could be put to rest. Trades belong in the ATD; they are a very important tool that allows GMs to build the kind of team they want to build. A little move-up here to get the guy you want, a little strategic move-down there because you don't like the guys on the board...these things are good, and should remain in the ATD.

But these monster trades are a poison to the league, and should be snuffed out once and for all with a clear rule.

That's too conservative , no room to maneuver.People have already traded ALL OF THEIR PICKS for the other GM entire set of picks.

Also , in a 40 teams league there's a huge difference between some of the picks in the same round , you can't have the same minimum or maximum return for the 1st overall than with the 40th overall.Just my opinion.

Depth isn't everything , he will seriously lack elite talent compare to other team and it will just be a matter of depth vs top end talent.

This isn't my first rodeo. Top-heavy teams have historically very, very little success in the ATD. The only one I can recall going anywhere is Nalyd's team from ATD#6, and even that team didn't make it past the quarterfinals, I believe.

If you consummate this trade, you are dooming your team to failure. You could have Jesus and Buddha as your top-2 centers and it still wouldn't help you because your defense and wings will be a mess after this deal. Trust me, you want no part of this trade.

Quote:

Your top end talent is still on the ice for 1/3 or 2/3 of the time depending on position or 3/3 if it's a goalie , and even if you have a great 3rd and 4th line , they can't play that much minutes.

I completely agree with you, but your judgment is way off. Top units in the ATD are filled until at least the 6th round (that's the best metric). You've got three forwards, two defensemen and a goalie. You are giving up three first unit picks (3rd, 4th and 5th) to move up from the 2nd to the 1st. Your trading partner here is not picking up extra 3rd/4th liners - he's swapping his 3rd/4th liners for your first liners.

I have no idea why sensible guys like 70's think this trade is acceptable. It's one of the worst I've ever seen.

That's too conservative , no room to maneuver.People have already traded ALL OF THEIR PICKS for the other GM entire set of picks.

Trading a complete draft position (all picks for all picks) is a completely different animal, and is a red herring to this conversation.

My recommendation comes from...well, years of being an ATD GM. We need a restriction on the scope of trades, not the number of them. Anyone who's been around this thing very long should be able to see that.

This isn't my first rodeo. Top-heavy teams have historically very, very little success in the ATD. The only one I can recall going anywhere is Nalyd's team from ATD#6, and even that team didn't make it past the quarterfinals, I believe.

If you consummate this trade, you are dooming your team to failure. You could have Jesus and Buddha as your top-2 centers and it still wouldn't help you because your defense and wings will be a mess after this deal. Trust me, you want no part of this trade.

I completely agree with you, but your judgment is way off. Top units in the ATD are filled until at least the 6th round (that's the best metric). You've got three forwards, two defensemen and a goalie. You are giving up three first unit picks (3rd, 4th and 5th) to move up from the 2nd to the 1st. Your trading partner here is not picking up extra 3rd/4th liners - he's swapping his 3rd/4th liners for your first liners.

I have no idea why sensible guys like 70's think this trade is acceptable. It's one of the worst I've ever seen.

It's possible I will lose , but at least I'll defend what I think is the reality , the combo I would get would beat 2/3 of this league easily in real life just by raw talent alone elevating trash players to the level of other team's depth players.Since I can name Gretzky which I already have , my wingers no matter who they are now better just by the fact they play with him.At least I will defend my own team and general point of view of hockey at the same time making my experience more enjoyable , but it's not up to me at this point so good luck with the rest of this adventure .I will respect any decisions that is made.

I agree it might not be the popular way of thinking but it's mine , and that's why I want to contribute and maybe convince 1 , 2 or 20 persons that my point of view is not necessarily wrong.Might or might not happen , but I'm trying to give it a try , if this trade doesn't happen , life is life , I have Gretzky and I'll have more depth.

Depth isn't everything , he will seriously lack elite talent compare to other team and it will just be a matter of depth vs top end talent.Your top end talent is still on the ice for 1/3 or 2/3 of the time depending on position or 3/3 if it's a goalie , and even if you have a great 3rd and 4th line , they can't play that much minutes.

With you on this one. After thinking about it, it's a fair trade but everyone is ignoring the obvious fact of how your wingers will be elevated playing with The Great one and M**** L******.

I completely disagree. If he pulls this deal off, Zamboni Mania should be ashamed of himself if he doesn't win the ATD going away.

Dropping from the 5th overall into the 2nd round is a big fall, but moving up from 11th, 12th, 13th to 3rd, 4th, 5th is a hugely lopsided return for that move-down. I don't get how the experienced GMs here aren't seeing it.

I could build a team with the picks ZM will get after this deal that no one could touch. It is badly, badly out of whack.

Then people should find their own way of making it happen for themselve , I don't know what to say.

You see...this is exactly why we need trade vetoes. The logic that if you want to compete with a team that has benefitted from an unbalanced trade you should simply make one yourself is completely corrosive to the spirit of the ATD, and engenders a ridiculous snowball effect in which the draft comes to be dominated by the GMs who are best able to game the system.

We have, by the way, already seen some of this in the past. ATD#9 featured a fevered competition (between some of the top GMs, mind you - pappy and Eagle were the leaders of the pack) to see who could trade down the fastest and collect the most top 200 picks. Many lopsided trade-down deals were consummated, with the party giving up the higher pick almost always making out like a bandit at the expense of some overexcited partner who just had to trade up for player_x. It is not a coincidence that pappy's team won ATD#9. It was around this time that the "gaming" aspect of the ATD started to get out of hand, though matters didn't really come to a boiling point until ATD#11.

Although I disagree with the pitch of VanI's complaints, I agree with him that such gamesmanship has nothing, at all, to do with hockey history, and is much closer to fantasy hockey. The ATD is a game - and trading is part of the fun - but all games have rules, and wild, unrestricted trading really does make the game less fun for the rest of us. The "if you don't like it, just do it yourself" argument is nothing but cynical nonsense.

You see...this is exactly why we need trade vetoes. The logic that if you want to compete with a team that has benefitted from an unbalanced trade you should simply make one yourself is completely corrosive to the spirit of the ATD, and engenders a ridiculous snowball effect in which the draft comes to be dominated by the GMs who are best able to game the system.

We have, by the way, already seen some of this in the past. ATD#9 featured a fevered competition (between some of the top GMs, mind you - pappy and Eagle were the leaders of the pack) to see who could trade down the fastest and collect the most top 200 picks. Many lopsided trade-down deals were consummated, with the party giving up the higher pick almost always making out like a bandit at the expense of some overexcited partner who just had to trade up for player_x. It is not a coincidence that pappy's team won ATD#9. It was around this time that the "gaming" aspect of the ATD started to get out of hand, though matters didn't really come to a boiling point until ATD#11.

Although I disagree with the pitch of VanI's complaints, I agree with him that such gamesmanship has nothing, at all, to do with hockey history, and is much closer to fantasy hockey. The ATD is a game - and trading is part of the fun - but all games have rules, and wild, unrestricted trading really does make the game less fun for the rest of us. The "if you don't like it, just do it yourself" argument is nothing but cynical nonsense.

I don't really disagree with you , and I don't want to ruin the party or anything , but as far as I' concerned I did nothing against the rule and if the trade is refused I won't be angry at anybody for it and will glady continue the experience.I'm not trying to make ennemies here , but I have to hold my position until a vote is made against it because it's my job as a manager of my team to assemble it as close I want it to be.

I'm sorry if I offended someone , was not my intention , but some people already said it was more than fine , so I guess your opinion is not everybody's opinion , but so is mine and I know that.English is also not my first language and sometimes the way I talk could be interpreted in strange ways , I was not trying to sound arrogant.

Also , just a thought , winning is fun and all , but the real fun here is to debate , and differant structured team is great for that and I'm trying to accomplish that.We'll see , if people refuse then so be it.The fact ''pappy's team'' won in ATD 9 doesn't mean his team would have won in real life , which is why debating can be endlessly fun

Fine , but feel free to get it off your chest in private , I'm sure I've faced worst in my life

There is no reason for anyone to be rude to you, and I don't think that anyone seriously believes that you are operating in bad faith. You are simply excited about building your team and not thinking about the consequences for the league, as a whole. No one can fault you for it, just as no one can fault Zamboni for wanting to work a trade to his (rather extreme) benefit.

The need for for a trade veto mechanism has nothing to do with bad faith or cheating, and it is not necessary to be angry with any party involved to deem a trade unacceptable for reasons of league balance.

I don't really disagree with you , and I don't want to ruin the party or anything , but as far as I' concerned I did nothing against the rule and if the trade is refused I won't be angry at anybody for it and will glady continue the experience.I'm not trying to make ennemies here , but I have to hold my position until a vote is made against it because it's my job as a manager of my team to assemble it as close I want it to be.

Good. I appreciate your restraint. We will move forward one way or another without hurt feelings.